Why do you criticize Hinduism more than any other religion? This is a question often posed to us – the rationalists, secularists and atheists in India- by the proponents of Hindutwa?

The first time I heard this question it was not from a hardcore Hindutwa proponent, but a medical doctor in Kerala. It was in the late 1980s, when we, a group of young rationalist activists, approached this doctor for financial contribution towards a conference organized by our organization. We tried to explain our position telling him about the number of occasions when we had led campaigns against fundamentalists belonging to other religions, the number of publications brought out by rationalists in Kerala criticizing the religious texts as well as the obscurantist practices followed by Muslims and Christians. Our doctor, however, was not willing to lend his ears to our arguments and we were thrown out of his clinic with him refusing to give us any money.

Over the last two decades since then I have faced this question quite often, forcing me to think about it frequently. Let me hence enumerate the reasons why I find myself criticizing the beliefs and rituals of Hinduism more often than those of other religions.

1. The very first reason that comes to my mind is a question of statistics. More than 80% of the Indian population is Hindu. Naturally, more than 80% of our criticism would also be directed against the belief system of Hindus.

This is precisely the case in other countries too. I read quite a few well-known rationalist periodicals published from the US and Europe. In all these periodicals, most of the articles are devoted to criticizing Christianity, because that is the religion that the majority of their population follows. Wouldn’t it be irrational to criticize the rationalists of these continents as prejudiced against Christianity?

2. Second is my familiarity with the religion I was born into. I am more familiar with the beliefs, tenets, rituals, and practices of Hinduism than that of any other religion, and hence I am more confident in criticizing it.

So is the case with other rationalists, who were brought up among people adhering to other religious denominations. The writings of a Salman Rushdie, an Ibn Warraq or a Taslima Nasrin, for instance, are more frequently directed against Islamic fundamentalists than those belonging to other religions. (It should be emphasized here that I am not trying to elevate myself to the stature of these eminent writers).

The question of statistics referred to above once again comes into play here. Assume that one percent of any religious community in India become rationalists and start criticizing their parent religion. In India, according to Census-2001, we have 80.4% Hindus, 13.4% Muslims, and 2.3% Christians. This percentage would naturally get reflected in any given group of rationalists and, as a consequence, in the rationalist literature produced in India.

3. Third, there is a possibility that the liberalization or secularization of the religion of the majority in a country has a positive impact on the religion of the minority itself.

For instance, I have noticed, in Kerala, where I was born, the followers of Islam are much more liberal than many other parts of India. It is not possible for any section of a people, religious minority included, to be completely outside the sphere of influence of the society they are part of, however much the fundamentalist leadership is against it.

4. Fourth, the criticism coming from within a community is much more effective than those coming from people outside the fold. This is because criticism, however constructive they be, coming from people from outside a community would tend to be construed as xenophobia or even outright communal. In a perfect liberal-secular society, this should not be the case and every criticism, wherever it comes from, would be adjudged on its innate worth. But ours is not such a society. It still has a highly conservative, semi-feudal setup with a significant presence of religio-fascist elements intolerant of any kind of criticism.

For instance, in Karnataka, at the time of my writing this, a violent intimidation is being unleashed against Christians by fascist Hindu outfits such as Bajrangdal. Churches were ransacked, religious statues broken, and nuns physically abused. One of the ostensible reasons cited for this attack was that a certain Christian sect allegedly had published a book in Kannada (Sathya Darshini) denigrating Hindu religious figures. Excerpts from the book reproduced in Deccan Herald (September 18, 2008, Bangalore) shows that they are nothing in comparison to the celebrated rationalist-reformer E.V.Ramaswamy Naiker’s acerbic textual criticism of characters in Ramayana. Though the Hindu-right did agitate against EVR and his Periyarana, it never took such a violent turn as has been happening in Karnataka at present. One of the reasons for the less-violent reaction to EVR’s work was he was seen as an “insider” as against the Christian critique of Hindu religious texts. (I am not suggesting even for a moment that the intimidation of Christians seen in various parts of Karnataka today is a Hindu-reaction to this book. It is not. According to Deccan Herald, the book was printed in a press that was closed down a decade back. The attack in fact is a pre-meditated attempt of the Sangh Parivar to communalize Hindu society in Karnataka on the lines of Narendra Modi’s Gujarat).

5. The fifth and most important reason is the brutal fact that the Hindu fundamentalist forces (RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini, etc) have been on the rise since the late 1970s.

The formation of Janata Party government (which included such disparate political formations as socialists and rightwing Hindutwa elements) in 1977 after the infamous emergency gave legitimacy to forces such as RSS. Since the 1990s, Hindutwa forces have used extreme violence to intimidate minorities and secularists. The violence in 1990 following the Ratha Yatra of L.K.Advani, the demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992, the state-sponsored violence (in which more than a thousand people were murdered) against Muslims following the burning of a train in Godhra in Gujarat in 2002, the continuing (even at the time of penning this essay) violence against Christians in various parts (especially in Orissa and Karnataka) of the country, the attempts to saffronise education and secular institutions during the NDA government, the attacks on exhibition of paintings of MF Hussain, etc are ample evidence of the presence and rise of Hindutwa fascism in the country. There is no point in calling myself a rationalist if I do not take a stand against this fascist intimidation and violence and speak for the rights of the intimidated.

I hope the above satisfactorily answers the question posed at the beginning. It is quite possible that other activists campaigning for secularism may have many other reasons to cite in addition to what I have attempted to point out. I would be glad if they come out with their arguments.

Further Thoughts on Why I Criticize Hinduism…

Meera Nanda

Like Manoj and other Indian rationalists, I have often been chided by fellow Indians – fairly mainstream, middle-class bhadralok, most of them — for picking on Hinduism. I am asked if I am so concerned about irrationalities and pseudo-sciences, why don’t I take on Islam and Christianity? Aren’t they full of faith-based nonsense? Hinduism, my critics tell me, is far more rational and “scientific” than these other “Semitic” religions in which you have to take the revelation purely on faith, no questions asked. I am often told rather gleefully that all my labors are wasted because they I am not aiming my rationalism against Christians and Muslims. Some go even further and assume that because I am critical of Hinduism, I must be a secret Christian, and I must be working for “the proselytizers”! Apparently, no one born a Hindu can legitimately raise questions about the “Eternal Truths” of the faith.

On reading Manoj’s very cogent defense of why he believes that internal criticism of Hinduism is perfectly legitimate and even necessary, I thought it might be worthwhile to share my own take on it.

I’m presently working on a book manuscript in which I defend the old Nehruvian imperative of cultivating “scientific temper.” ( I call this book Tryst with Destiny: Scientific Temper and Secularization of India. The book is very nearly done, and if all goes well, it should appear in print by mid-2009.)

I copy below a section titled “Three Caveats” from the introduction to the book. Here I anticipate the kind of criticism that I know will be heaped upon me, and try to meet the critics head-on. Here is what I say:

Three Caveats

Three caveats must be noticed about the style, intentions and the scope of this book.

The first caveat has to do with the fact that this book deals only with the conflicts between modern science and Hinduism. It does not examine the many flagrant irrationalities and fanaticisms that exist in Islam and Christianity, to say nothing of the many folk expressions of Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism. This exclusive focus on Hinduism is a result of many factors.

First, and most obviously, Hinduism is the religion of the majority; close to 85 percent of Indians describe themselves as Hindus. Secondly, it is a matter of historical fact that the proponents of scientific rationalism in India in the 20th century, whose ideas are explored at length here, came from a Hindu background and were engaged with issues relating to the Hindu metaphysical justifications for caste and gender inequalities. Thirdly, Hinduism has avoided a serious house-cleaning by drawing far-fetched and ad hoc analogies with modern science. It has succeeded in selling itself around the world as the only and the ultimate “religion of reason,” while redefining reason itself to conform to the Hindu ideal of spiritual or Gnostic knowledge. Finally, I must acknowledge my own background. My own atheism emerged out of a critical back-and- forth with Hinduism, the faith I was born into, and the faith I took quite earnestly when I was younger. Among all the religions of India, it is the popular Hinduism of Ramayana, Bhagvat Gita and the Puranas that I have a fair amount of first-hand experience of. As an atheist of Hindu origin, and as a secularist concerned with the growth of Hindu nationalist politics, I take a rational critique of Hinduism to be a matter of great urgency.

It is for these reasons that this book is focused on the record of secularization and rationalization – mostly the lack of it – of Hinduism. But this Hindu-centrism should not be read as a back-handed approval of, or partiality for, any other religion. No religious faith is free from highly improbable and objectively false beliefs about matters of empirically verifiable facts. Indian Christians are as fond of their miracles and faith-healing as the devout Hindus who lined up to offer milk to the milk-drinking idols of Ganesha; Indian Muslims can be as literalist in the matter of Koran and Sharia as any Christian fundamentalist anywhere in the world. The principles of scientific rationality cut across all faith traditions and all conceptions of the supernatural, personal or impersonal, one or many, transcendent or immanent. Science is an equal-opportunity debunker, or a broad-spectrum weed-killer, if you will.

But let us weed our own gardens, I say, for those are the gardens and the weeds that we are most familiar with. Even though I have no desire whatsoever to step back into the Hindu garden of my childhood and youth, I insist on weeding it nevertheless, so that others who come after me can live in it (if they still choose to) without losing their minds and their consciences.

The second caveat has to do with the place of religion in social life. This book’s plea for combating superstitions and pseudoscience should not be read as a militant rejection of religion per se, even though all religions, without exception, have served as incubators of irrational beliefs. The idea is rather to set limits on what functions religions can legitimately perform in the 21st century. Applying critical inquiry to religious doctrines means only this: Insofar as religions invoke supernatural forces (whether a personal God or the impersonal but conscious shakti, or spiritual energy) in order to make factual claims about the natural world, they have an obligation to meet the same standards of evidence that apply to scientific explanations in the relevant domain of the natural world. In other words, if religions want to assert factual truths about the universe, or if they want to convince us of the actual existence of the beings and powers they claim exist in the universe, they cannot fall back upon the authority of ancient books or mystical “seers” gifted with divine powers to see what is not perceptible to ordinary mortals. If and when religions step into the turf of natural science and social sciences (including of course, history and archeology) which deal with empirically testable matters, they have to play by the rules of accepted science and adjust their picture of the world accordingly.

But as long as religions refrain from stepping into the turf of science, and learn to interpret the supernatural powers and phenomena as myths, allegories and poetic metaphors, they need not worry about scientific demonstrability, for scientific validity is not the correct criterion for measuring the value of poetry. Religion as hope-renewing poetry, myth or parable has — and perhaps will always have – an important place in the modern world. But religion will have to cede the function of explaining the natural and social world to science.

For many reasons having to do with Hindu theology and India’s entanglement in European romantic counter-Enlightenment, this separation between expressive and explanatory functions of religion has been particularly slow in coming in India. Contemporary Hinduism makes a number of factual claims about the cosmological order. A brief list of such claims will include the following: that the entire universe is filled with conscious spiritual energy that animates everything; that a soul capable of conscious awareness and memories can exist apart from the brain and the body; that this soul enters the embryo of a species chosen as a result of the souls’ karmic account from the previous birth; that different species of living beings represent different stages of the evolution of the soul; that morally good or bad deeds (punya or papa) from past births influence the innate qualities, gunas or “substance code” of different species, castes and genders that the soul is born into; the macrocosm (planets and stars) corresponds to and influences the microcosm (human affairs) and so on. Whatever else they are, all of them are simultaneously claims about the nature of the material world of particles, bodies, birth and evolution. Because these claims involve the material world, they are open to serious empirical inquiry using the standard methods of modern biology, physics, cosmology and neurobiology of consciousness. All of these claims need to be critically assessed based upon advances in scientific knowledge in these domains.

Avatars of Vishnu

But rather than open its cosmological claims to critical scrutiny – and reject the many falsified elements — modern Hinduism has adopted the strategy of co-opting the vocabulary of modern science to legitimize its spirit-centered worldview. To take just one example, important Hindu philosophers, from Keshub Chandra, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo have interpreted Vishnu’s ten avatars as foreshadowing the Darwinian theory of evolution and have interpreted the Hindu idea of the presence of consciousness in nature as an actual component (called “involution”) of the process of biological evolution. Rather than provide metaphorical interpretation of the spiritual teachings, neo-Hindu “reformists” have gone out of their way to defend them as if they are condoned by modern science. It is this abuse of modern science to prop up the outdated and objectively false assumptions about this world that is the target of this book.

The final caveat has to do with the use of the word “superstition.” This book will use the label “superstition,” when warranted, to describe irrational practices that have doctrinal support from religious texts. This term has fallen out of academic favor because it has come to reek of totalitarian persecution of religious believers, Soviet or Chinese style. Calling someone’s belief or practice “superstitious” is seen as tantamount to labeling that group deficient in the ability to reason and imposing your own standards of rationality on them: I have personally encountered many otherwise liberal and progressive intellectuals who take umbrage at me referring to elements of popular Hinduism as superstitions. Critics also point to the utter futility of it all. Don’t modern societies create their own superstitions? Isn’t it true that societies at the pinnacle of enlightened modernity – not just the US but the more secularized Western Europe as well – remain rife with old and New Age superstitions?

There are good reasons why pseudoscience and superstitions will always be with us for, to quote Carl Sagan:

[Superstitions] speak to powerful emotional needs that science often leaves unfulfilled. it caters to fantasies about personal powers we lack. it offers satisfaction of spiritual hungers, cures for disease, promises that death is not the end. It assures us that ..we are hooked up and tied to the Universe (Sagan, 1995: 14).

But persistence of superstition should be no reason to throw in the towel. On the contrary, persistent fallacies demand equally persistent critique. Indeed, those who rightly object to political persecution of groups marked “superstitious” (the persecution of Falun Gong in China, for example) should welcome open debate and demand for evidence, because debate is the best guarantor of an open society.

What is not acceptable is to sweep superstitions under the rug out of political correctness, for these will come back to haunt us. After all, what is a superstition? In the immortal words of Robert Ingersoll, one of America’s best known agnostics:

Superstition is:

To believe in spite of evidence or without evidence.

To account for one mystery by another.

To believe that the world is governed by chance or caprice.

To disregard the true relation between cause and effect.

To put thought, intention and design back of nature.

To believe that mind created and controls matter.

To believe in force apart from substance, or in substance apart from force.

To believe in miracles, spells and charms, in dreams and prophecies.

To believe in the supernatural.

The foundation of superstition is ignorance, the superstructure is faith and the dome is a vain hope. Superstition is the child of ignorance and the mother of misery. (Ingersoll, 1898, emphasis added).

Regardless of the content of the superstition (whether it has to do with astrology and crystals or “higher” more “subtle” readings of quantum physics), what is troubling about superstitions is how these beliefs are arrived at. What is troubling is the tendency to “believe in spite of [falsifying] evidence or without [affirming or positive] evidence,” to “disregard the true relationship between cause and effect,” and to “put thought intention and design back in nature.“

These styles of thinking are always unwholesome and sometimes downright dangerous. Individually and by themselves, they appear to cause no long-lasting harm, apart from the fact that they most often lead to false conclusions. After all, how does it matter if people read their horoscopes, if it brings them some hope in this chaotic and unpredictable world? The same logic applies to belief in miracles and the power of prayers to bring them about: people need consolation and hope.

Ridding the world completely of all irrationalities is a quixotic task, indeed. As long as long as they cause no real harm, one can learn to live with irrationalities of one’s fellow citizens. But more often than not, superstitions do real harm. To begin with, they exact a cost from the poorest and the most helpless members of the society who end up wasting scarce resources on charlatans and holy frauds. But what makes superstitious thinking dangerous for the society in the long term is that it cultivates a habit of believing without adequate evidence, of accepting ideas on faith alone. This paves the way for false prophets and dictators.

It is for this reason that secular democracies must learn to balance the freedom of belief with an obligation to constantly push against irrationally held beliefs with demands for evidence that can be systematically tested. There is simply no other option.

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

17 Comments

Coolchannel Husain
May 25, 2018 at 5:22 pm

Truths/Facts about Hinduism, Truth is Bitter and Harsh
# Hindu God Brahma raped his own daughter Saraswati , it’s written in the original Hindu scriptures such as Geeta. Hinduism teaches incest.
#krishna married 16000 young girls
#Vedas have chants to drive away insects and to create fire !
# Pervert Hindu God Krishna was so sexually Pervert even in his childhood that he used to take away the clothes of bathing ladies at the local river and lake and used to peek at them bathing nude and pass vulgar comments on them and when they came out of river nude searching for clothes krishna used to get a glance full of sexual temptations.This is their Hindu God and culture.
# In ancient India Hindu Brahmins were so Pervert and merciless that they used to impose tax called Nangeli or mullakaram for lower caste women to even cover their breast in public!
# All Hindu gods were ancient con artist who used tricks learned from ancient international people and fooled civilians into thinking they had supernatural powers.
#The Pervert Hindu God Shiva mercilessly beheaded his own son Ganesha and killed him after Ganesha stopped him from peeking in Nude bathing Parvati, This shows how sexually aroused and uncontrollable the rapist Hindu gods are, and After being confronted by Parvati this shameless Hindu God Shiva mercilessly killed another innocent elephant and ‘magically’ put his head and stick it on top of Ganesha, this proves Hinduism teaches child sacrifice.
# There is a Brahmin ritual defined in Rig Veda for progeny called ASHVAMEDHA YAJNA. In this ritual per Hindu scriptures, Brahmin Males and Females has sex with dead horse.

# Hinduism says that earth is stationary.

# Ancient Hindu scholars and writers used to say that stars are glitters glued to space!and this was their belief until modern science proved them false after that these hindus started reinterpreting their scriptures in Manipulative way to cover up the illogical claims and make it seem more conforming to science so they could claim they knew it already !

# Zero is not a Indian invention.
The concept of zero had evolved way before Hinduism in Europe and greece but it wasn’t symbolised, aryabhatta only symbolised zero as 0
Zero is popularised by Aryabhatta

# the earth is fixed with nails on four sides of the earth which also implies that earth is flat according to hinduism.

# The Brahmins are the Aryan Invaders and have seized this land of India from native Dravidians and dark skinned people, Drive ‘Brahmin and there fake Vedas away and back to Europe and middle east.The Hardcore Hindus and Brahmins can’t get by this harsh truth that they are invaders that’s why they lie that this was just a myth of Aryan Invasion, when this theory of Aryan Invasion is backed by scientific research and genetic proofs and archaeological evidences. ARYANS GO AWAY FROM INDIA, GIVE INDIA BACK TO DARK SKINNED NATIVES AND PEOPLE FROM RURAL INDIA.
# The Hindu God Hanuman is a Big Liar , he claimed he was Brahmachari that is he will not have sex with a women but it was found out Hanuman Had a child ! That clearly shows that Hanuman must have raped a women, and later on Hanuman and his blind followers lie and justify with Manipulative reasons that Hanuman’s child was Born when his sweat fell into pond which is illogical and False , hanuman clearly raped a girl.
#Hindu God in Ancient Shiva Purana , Shiva raped an innocent devotee called Madhura while parvati was away.
# Hinduism says that earthquake occurs because their god Shiva is dancing (performing tandav)
# Hinduism says that squirrels have lines on their back because their lord Ram had swiped his finger past their back and since then all squirrels have lines on their back
#Hindu is extremely atrocious towards Females the In hinduism,menstruating women are traditionally considered ritually impure and given rules to follow. … Women themselves are seen as impure and polluted, and are often isolated as untouchables, unable to return to their family, for the length of their period.
#Hindu god Shiva also raped a Prostitute.

#Hindu god Yama raped his sister.
# Shameless Hindu God Shiva was a women Abuser he beat and fought with his own wife Parvati.

# Hindu God parvati stepped on His Husband’s Chest, didn’t even respect her husband.
#Earth sits on the back of a cow according to Hindu scriptures.
#Earth is shaped like a brick according to Rig Vedas.

#Exremelt violent Hindu goddess Kali was a Dravidian black skinned god who used to mercilessly behead innocent Civilians.
#The word ‘Hindu’ is an arabic term given to the people residing by the river sindhu the true name of their religion is nothing, it’s just a collection of various beliefs intermingled with each other.

#The evil and brutal concept of Sati that is the wife of the deceased husband to be burned alive is a hindu tradition

#Brahma had sex with his own daughter saraswati.

#They worship Shiva Linga which is penis/dick of Shiva who was a dravidian god who had actual colour as black but aryans who invaded india whitened him to be of colour of kapur.Lingam and Linga according to oldest Sanskrit dictionary means male penis.But modern Hindus try to twist and manipulate the meaning of Lingam as they became ashamed of worshipping penis when world came to know about their religion.N ow they use newer dictionary by RSS chaddi chaap education and history rewriters to make the Lingam meaning as consciousness which is false according to ancient Hindu Sanskrit dictionary.

#Vedas and puranas are Plagiarised works from travellers and chinese saints

# yoga was stolen by indian rishis from chinese monks.

#Vedas and puranas dont have a single author it is a Plagiarised work and contains stolen knowledge from various travellers and international knowledge traders of ancient times thats why Vedas doeant have a single author.

British atrocities is a lie by brahmins and hindus because they got a little taste of their own medicine of what they did for 1000s of years to Dalits who were indigenous Indians while Brahmins were Aryan Invaders to India.
Britishers were extremely peaceful and didn’t conduct any attacks research shows all of the stories of British attacks were made up by Hindus for massive conspiracy against britishers Money and their machinery and technology since Hindus could never produce such technology l,Hindus bombed the British factories and houses killing many innocent British and Mughal children in the process but this was done intentionally, Hindus are terrorist lead by Blinding Brahmins who manipulate people trough their Deceptive logic and Fabricatedstories.
Hindus designed historical textual course in India extremely biased towards britishers playing the victim card on the other hand marrying many British and European women to get fairer generations as they had inferiority complex.
Brishers also developed many infrastructure in India and road and trains and technologies and gave the Dalits an empowerment and encouraged them to be not be suppressed by the oppressing Brahmins and gave them free job and money to support their family ,this was not well digested by Brahmins as they were used to keeping Dalits as Slaves and treat them Untouchables and didn’t want them to be treated this way so they planned a huge conspiracy against Britishers and Mughals.
Britishers were peaceful they even had many hindus in their army.
Britishers even allowed their daughters to marry socially and statusly inferior and dark coloured Brahmins who wanted to seek fair bride,look at any matrimonial paper of India you will still find brahmins seeking fair wife for getting fairer generation, this is how brahmins got fair skin.

It is strange the Meera Nanda has not yet responded to any of the comments. Either she has understood the falsity of her arguments or she is too egoist to respond. Criticizing Hinduism is understood and no rational person will object to that. But arguing that Islam will change to secular mode by criticizing Hinduism is too wishful, baseless and dangerous proposition. Her ignorance about Islam cannot justify her immature arguments. I call scholar like Meera Nanda “Pandit Murkh“.

Hi,
A little more to what I said in earlier response. Do you have any idea about the “Muslim Personal Law” in India? Do you remember Shah Banu case? Amir Khan did a TV serial “Satyamevo Jayate“. He never touched any social issue of Muslims in India including “TALAQ“. Because he is a hard core Muslim and would follow Sharia like an Alim. Such hypocrites are tolerated in India. And you want to secularize minority through your one sided example? You must know whom are you dealing with? Gandhiji also tried to bring Hitler to the path of nonviolence and the result was before us. Hindu fanatics should be condemned in all strongest ways. But how old are these fanatic organizations and with what inter-boarder and international ramifications? Any clue???

Religions, as such, are bogus constructs. Secularism is more harmful to society than religions. Secularism is a tool in hands of political mafia and pseudo-socialists in this part of the world. I have given my comments on the five points of “Why Should an Indian Rationalist Criticize Hinduism The Most”.

Point-1: On the face of it, the argument appears to be mathematically correct. But in “management”, they tell that 20% of staffs or employees create 80% of problem.Point-2: Nobody prevents anybody to acquire knowledge about other religions. Why to put across such lame excuse to justify a point?Point-3: How can you expect to change the teachings, thoughts and actions of other religions by criticizing the majority religion? How do you expect that minority religions will follow the secularization process of majority religion? Read about other religions. And when you are ignorant about other religions, why to go for such convenient assumptions?Point-4: I fully agree with this argument.Point-5: The fifth point is one sided with a blind eye on the other side. You cannot put a locality on fire and expect the inhabitants to remain silent and calm. What about before 1970? What about “Direct Action Day” & “Noakhali Massacre”? Why minority constitutes only 2% and 10% in Pakistan and Bangladesh presently. What about recent time? Do you want the people of majority religion to suffer from memory loss?

Hinduism is as false and bad as any other religion. Down with all religions. And double down with secularism.

If Hindus were not a secular lot, Muslims and Christians alike would be killed and forced to follow Hindu traditions. In Pakistan, Muslims don’t tolerate Hindus and forcefully convert them to Islam. This doesn’t happen in India. The majority of people against Hinduism are from lower castes who are still angry with the current generation of the upper castes (who absolutely had nothing to do with the subjugation) This way hate breeds hate. Sorry but this page is definitely written by lower castes (according to Indian Govt’s classification on upper/lower castes) who are frustrated with what happened to their ancestors. As for rural areas, obviously uneducated poor people are bound to be ignorant about secularism. Just like Iran, Iraq and backward Islamic countries have cases of acid throwing and forcing women to stay at home and wear a burkha all the time. I don’t care about people accusing me of Xenophobia, but Islam right now is the most evil force in the world and is one of the core reasons for Hindu fundamentalism.

Meera Nanda, not too long ago, I was like you, so alarmed by the rise of Hindu right-wing that I turned a blind eye towards the far bigger threat of Islam (both to its followers and non-Muslims).

But I now realise I am wasting my time : Hindu fundamentalism will keep rising unless we attack the root of the problem – Islam.

I have a Muslim girlfriend whom I intend to marry without conversion on her part or mine. I am anti-communalism in all forms, whether it is Hindu or Muslim. In fact, I have broken ties with a few friends in the past who refused to condemn the 2002 Gujarat riots.
I started reading about Islam TO REFUTE by fellow non-Muslim Gujaratis, most of whom are pretty anti-Muslim (they don’t have a clue about Islam though), as you know very well.
Initially I read books on Islam by academics. Then I came across the articles of ex-Muslims like Ibn Warraq, Taslima Nasreen, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and websites “exposing” Islam. I could not believe what I was reading hence I cross-checked every claim reading the Quran,the six collections of Hadiths (stories of Mohammed)considered authentic by Muslim scholars, and Sira (Mohammed’s biography). I also read about the position of Sharia as held by the four “fiqhs” (schools of Islamic jurisprudence) of Sunni Islam and the only major fiqh of Shia Islam. To my surprise, even the wikipedia entries on “Criticism of Islam” and “Criticism of Mohammed” contains enough facts to make it clear that Islam is ANYTHING BUT a religion of peace, and Mohammed was ANYTHING BUT a prophet of God.
And suddenly, every problem in the Islamic world made sense – it explains why Sunnis persecute Shias(and they retaliate)in many parts of the world, why Ahmediyas and Ba’hais are persecuted by Muslims with official sanction in Iran and elsewhere, the deplorable human rights record in Islamic/Muslim-majority countries (e.g. apostasy in illegal in all of them, and in many punishable by death), the rise of Hindu right-wing, decline in non-Muslim populations in countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan, and most importantly – why Islam(not Muslims) is a major topic of debate in Europe and the Americas.

You will also realise, after actually studying the Quran, reading the Hadiths, Sira and Sharia, that the achievements of Islam’s Golden Age had NOTHING to do with Islam.

Islam is truly an EVIL CULT, incompatible with modern civilisation. What makes it a real threat is not that it is the only intolerant religion. The God and prophets of Old Testament set the standards in violence and evil. The New Testament, in spite of the teachings of Christ, managed to turn out just a degree less violent.
But Mohammed scaled new heights in violence, misogyny and intolerance which can be seen in the Quran and his actions as reported by Muslim scholars themselves.

Muslims consider this man as the perfect man, a prophet of God, his example is called Sunnah , to be follwed as a role-model for all Muslims for all times to come. The Quran is considered to be the perfect book, immutable and unchangeable for all times to come.

I can NEVER be against innocent people just because they happened to be born in a particular religion. So once again, I request you not to dismiss me as a hateful bigot, another “Islamophobe”.

Sir/Sirs/Madame. I am not good on paper. we are living in a material based era. Era of Bookism, Idolism and Babaism. Even the governing bodies of the world are fanning Religions, for their vested interests. Through Religius mobilization of the Mobs, the Politicians are in gain, in the name of Decayed “DEMOCRACY”. In this Wave Majority does not want to hear against their so called BELIEF. Whicch is void of Humanity, Loyalty, Courtesy and Liberty.

Anirudh Kumar Satsangi
October 25, 2010 at 4:29 pm

Myth may also be a reality. Mythological facts are not averse to scientific investigation. We know that some solar systems other than ours have binary star (Sun). Ours has only one Sun. But there may be a possibility that our solar system might also have binary star some millions or billions year ago. It is written in Hanuman Chaleesa:”Bal samay Ravi bhaksh liyo tab teenahu lok bhayo andhiyaro” in English it mean that during his childhood Hanumanji had gobbled up Sun and darkness spread in entire universe. But this is cosmological phenomena. This is not possible for some super natural power who assumes physical on this Earth Planet to gobble up Sun. The other Sun(?) might have met Its natural death. Hanumanji is believed as the Incarnation of Lord Rudra. According to Hindu Mythology Lord Rudra is the God of Destruction or God of Annihilation.

Its better to always understand what “Hindu” means before criticizing it. Visit http://www.IISH.org. They have lot of digital publications, which will help you to understand what is it by meaning Hindu. Every part of Hindu spirituality can be explained scientifically.

Remember Hindu culture has survived 10000 years and there should be something that 85% of indians are still Hindus. Learn the culture and religion before you criticize. It doesn’t mean that you know every thing about this religion just because you are born here. Let us learn.

hinduism is the religion which has brutally annoyed the shudras and other backward classes of hindu religion itself. it is totally based on blind beliefs and meaningless superstitions. i, being a hindu myself strongly condemn the caste system of hindu religion. the organisations like rss, vhp which propogand hindutwa are not ready to destroy caste system which is one of the cruel faces of hinduism

Jainish
June 25, 2009 at 5:57 pm

Yes,I am appriciate that “All three religion is only maken for live for the only challenging life in between three religion.Actually every people have burn with a restionalism.After day by day the other seniourcitizen have teach us and give some positive tips for our self and they teaches us about the religion.
All three religions are also 100% controversy.As per criticize about islamic its depend upon people thinking its not forceable.I would like to not dominate to other culture or religion.
But,as per our humanbeing nature, every one have to do well for society.
We can’t be dominate to other religion or culture.
I request to people always think and do restionalism manner.It would be better for our society.

I dont think Hinduism is as ‘peaceful’ as claimed by some here. There are indeed some bloody history of Hindutva fanatics and alarming rise of comunal forces in recent history of India. If Hinduism is so peaceful, then there would be no demolition of Babri mosque, Ram janmabhumi hype, Gujarat massacare etc. If ‘Criticism and critical analysis of hinduism is fine and acceptable’ as claimed, then there would have no Hindutva Vandalism on Artist M F Hussain’s Paintings. If Hinduism was so peaceful then Sudra Holocaust, widow burning, caste-killing, dowry and many other event would not come into picture!

I understand the article touched some sensitive nerve. Some of them are very bothered. and they should be :)

Truthseeker
May 7, 2009 at 5:48 am

Criticism and critical analysis of hinduism is fine and acceptable. Hindus are inherently tolerent. Hindus do not even care about your criticism. hinduism has evolved in course of time. it has adapted things.

criticize islam, your dead body will be found due to peaceful islam. have you seen Taslima and other writers.

So live in your comfort zone and keep attacking hinduism :)) Fools, and coward authors.

tistarbahe
April 27, 2009 at 12:23 pm

Most intellectuals psychobabble within their safety zone. Since islam beats the hell out of you, you do not criticize islam. Hinduism is your easiest way out. You kill two birrds with the same stone: appease the muslims and show off your intellectualism, while most hindus do not really bother about your writings anyway!

You need the courage and vision of a Taslima Nasrin to criticize islam and praise what is of the land and genuine.

Jiten Roy
April 22, 2009 at 9:34 pm

It is quite forceful when someone from within a religion criticizes his/her own religion. My understanding is that superstitions in Hinduism come from ignorance and misunderstanding of the religion. Most Hindus do not understand the religion, and they think religion is basically idol-worshipping. In fact, idol-worshipping is only to influence the idol for personal gain. That has little to do with the spiritual salvation of souls. That’s the basic misunderstanding most Hindus have. There are so many spiritual scriptures in Hinduism. How many people have read them? How many people have read them but did not understand or could not interpret them? The answer is countless, and that includes people who criticize the religion. I am one of those people, who criticize the religion using my superficial knowledge about it. Based on my shallow knowledge, I see only superstition, blind faith, dogma, misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the scriptural verses, etc. being passed on as the religious doctrines. I have seen people interpreting the Gita various ways; no one knows what the author meant, and the literal interpretations, which most readers take home, appear unacceptable to me.

In spite of all these superstitions and drawbacks of the Hinduism, the mindset of the majority of Hindus (85% of the total population) in India fascinates me. Hindu society in India cannot be judged as communal, based on the fact that the country is being run by people from the minority religious sects (who are only 15% of the total population). This is not a small feat. How many societies in the world can show such an achievement? I think non-communal theme of the Hindu religion can be given much credit for creating such a mindset. May be the reason is that all Hindu religious scriptures deal with salvation of human souls as a whole, not Hindu souls. Hindus happen to follow those scriptures. That’s all. Therefore, those who love to criticize the Hindu religion should also know the basic scriptural theme that cannot promote communalism. You go to a temple, record everything that happens there for years after years and analyze them. What you will find is not a single inference about other religions or sects.

No one in the right mind can claim that Hindu communalism is coming from the Hindu religious teaching. Then, why Hindu communalism exists in India, and where do they come from? I think it comes from the contamination of the other contemporary religions, promoting sectarian salvation only. What I see in India is that Hindu society is insecure due to the religious expansionism of the other contemporary religions in India, which is giving birth to various Hindu fundamentalist groups. This is a perturbation from the religious scriptural teaching of Hinduism.

Very Interesting and forceful article, no doubt. I remember that few years back Syed Kamran Mirza wrote an equally forceful article titled, ‘Why we critique only Islam’ which created a ground of having a lot of debate and discussion in our forum. Even being considerate to the arguments by both the parties, I also see more than enough rooms for the opponents to argue who will not that much convinced such ‘Why critique only/mostly’ pattern of the argument. While Indian rationalists formulating their argument mainly based on the fact ‘80% of the Indian population of India’ or ‘rising of Hindu fundamentalist forces such as RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Durga Vahini, etc since the late 1970s’ etc. the rationalists of Muslim origin would also come with good point that while Hindu fundamentalism is merely a local phenomenon (such as localised in India), Islamic fundamentalism is a global one. Al_quaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbullah, Horkut-ul- Jihad, Horkut-ul-mujahedin, Jaise Muhamad, Jihad-e-Muhammad, Tahrik-e-Nifaj-shariaat-e-Muhammad, Al-Hikhma, Al-badr-Mujaheddin, Jamah-e-Islamia, Hijb-e-Islamia has been speeded globaly like virus. Both parties have some good points while ignoring the strong argument coming from the other camp. What I see here is quite interesting. The rationalists coming from hindu background are more eager to focus on Hindu religion as they are born into it and more confident in criticizing it. Exactly same thing I see for the rationalists of Muslim background formulating argument criticizing Islam. Definitely, the criticism coming from within a community is much more effective than those coming from people outside the fold. This is the reason why I always tried to build a platform in mukto-mona where people will start criticize or discuss their own faith first, rather than joining opposite camp to create unnecessary chaos. I have seen many Hindu fanatics joined with the anti-Islamic campaign for their own vested communal agenda, and even use those platform to spread hatred. This is the last thing I would like to do in mukto-mona.